Who runs a 20wt here?
- Thread starter StevieC
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by OilUzer
I am glad that we ALL agree that toothpaste is toothpaste
Oh no it's not... I'm just waiting for study's on it to show up but I guess those folks are in bed.
I am glad that we ALL agree that toothpaste is toothpaste
Oh no it's not... I'm just waiting for study's on it to show up but I guess those folks are in bed.
Mr SAE paper should be up soon. How many hours difference between say Minot, ND and Sydney, AU?
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by OilUzer
I am glad that we ALL agree that toothpaste is toothpaste
Oh no it's not... I'm just waiting for study's on it to show up but I guess those folks are in bed.
Kind of like an SAE study - LINK
Wow 32 pages! I usually buy the cheapest "original flavor" kind of like Wal-Mart conventional supertech version of toothpaste
I am afraid if i read that document , I will have to upgrade!
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by OilUzer
I am glad that we ALL agree that toothpaste is toothpaste
Oh no it's not... I'm just waiting for study's on it to show up but I guess those folks are in bed.
Kind of like an SAE study - LINK
Wow 32 pages! I usually buy the cheapest "original flavor" kind of like Wal-Mart conventional supertech version of toothpaste
I am afraid if i read that document , I will have to upgrade!
Originally Posted by userfriendly
Mr SAE paper should be up soon. How many hours difference between say Minot, ND and Sydney, AU?
LOL, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I've learned the last few days that the SAE papers are useless as evidence, as they don't test every combination of oil and engine under every operating condition. As a result, the conclusions that they draw are no more sound than half baked made up theories stated emphatically and repeated.
Have also learned that facts scare people, while automotive fairy tales allay their fears, especially in light of their scientific equivalance (or superiority) to said SAE papers.
When news gets to the SAE, I would imagine that they too will see the light, disband, and there will be a book burning the likes of which hasn't been seen before...for largely the same reasons as most.
So having learned...I'm sticking to the Tarot and I-Ching for a while.
Mr SAE paper should be up soon. How many hours difference between say Minot, ND and Sydney, AU?
LOL, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I've learned the last few days that the SAE papers are useless as evidence, as they don't test every combination of oil and engine under every operating condition. As a result, the conclusions that they draw are no more sound than half baked made up theories stated emphatically and repeated.
Have also learned that facts scare people, while automotive fairy tales allay their fears, especially in light of their scientific equivalance (or superiority) to said SAE papers.
When news gets to the SAE, I would imagine that they too will see the light, disband, and there will be a book burning the likes of which hasn't been seen before...for largely the same reasons as most.
So having learned...I'm sticking to the Tarot and I-Ching for a while.
0w20 Subaru Forester 2.5L
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by SteveSRT8
When someone is wallpapering the entire forum with charts and videos I believe it reveals a need for attention, not a need to disseminate facts...
So nobody can post technical info in these type of discussions, or show any info that backs up their viewpoints? Seems like an excuse for not really understanding the technical info.
You are of course entitled to imagine whatever you can.
Originally Posted by SteveSRT8
When someone is wallpapering the entire forum with charts and videos I believe it reveals a need for attention, not a need to disseminate facts...
So nobody can post technical info in these type of discussions, or show any info that backs up their viewpoints? Seems like an excuse for not really understanding the technical info.
You are of course entitled to imagine whatever you can.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by userfriendly
Mr SAE paper should be up soon. How many hours difference between say Minot, ND and Sydney, AU?
LOL, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I've learned the last few days that the SAE papers are useless as evidence, as they don't test every combination of oil and engine under every operating condition. As a result, the conclusions that they draw are no more sound than half baked made up theories stated emphatically and repeated.
Have also learned that facts scare people, while automotive fairy tales allay their fears, especially in light of their scientific equivalance (or superiority) to said SAE papers.
When news gets to the SAE, I would imagine that they too will see the light, disband, and there will be a book burning the likes of which hasn't been seen before...for largely the same reasons as most.
So having learned...I'm sticking to the Tarot and I-Ching for a while.
Good Morning! (At least here anyway)
Are SAE papers good for exploration to see if there is merit in investigating the findings further? ABSOLUTELY. Are they a smoking gun just because of certain results obtained without every possible variable accounted for? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You can't apply a blanket statement that thicker is better or more MOFT is required for better protection simply because it was the findings of a study that took some variables into account and not all of them such as those that would be found in a real world situation. Eg: Different engines, different methods of operation, different ad-packs, temperature, time, proper engineering to keep an oil in the optimal temperature zone etc.
Originally Posted by userfriendly
Mr SAE paper should be up soon. How many hours difference between say Minot, ND and Sydney, AU?
LOL, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I've learned the last few days that the SAE papers are useless as evidence, as they don't test every combination of oil and engine under every operating condition. As a result, the conclusions that they draw are no more sound than half baked made up theories stated emphatically and repeated.
Have also learned that facts scare people, while automotive fairy tales allay their fears, especially in light of their scientific equivalance (or superiority) to said SAE papers.
When news gets to the SAE, I would imagine that they too will see the light, disband, and there will be a book burning the likes of which hasn't been seen before...for largely the same reasons as most.
So having learned...I'm sticking to the Tarot and I-Ching for a while.
Good Morning! (At least here anyway)
Are SAE papers good for exploration to see if there is merit in investigating the findings further? ABSOLUTELY. Are they a smoking gun just because of certain results obtained without every possible variable accounted for? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You can't apply a blanket statement that thicker is better or more MOFT is required for better protection simply because it was the findings of a study that took some variables into account and not all of them such as those that would be found in a real world situation. Eg: Different engines, different methods of operation, different ad-packs, temperature, time, proper engineering to keep an oil in the optimal temperature zone etc.
Last edited:
On page ten but the Focus has ran 5w20 for at least 100k and it's 144k, don't remember what it started out on. Didn't stop the valve seat from dropping but the cross hatching on the cylinder still looked perfect, very little wear on the rod bearings, the camshaft in the head had no wear. Got it put back together with a new head but I think got rod cap backwards, alot of banging. If that's what it was the ST 5w20 I had in there protected it well. There was no damage to the crankshaft and the bearing still looked the same. Won't be able to fire it up for a couple days to know.
Run what the engineers spec and worry about other things.
Run what the engineers spec and worry about other things.
It's page 6 for me. Depends on your preference settings.
Thanks for sharing, it's nice to know that a 4 cylinder which is higher revving and generally higher RPM cruising seems to have been fine on a 20wt so far. This is good verifiable proof in once instance with an actual engine disassembled that ran a 20wt.
Thanks for sharing, it's nice to know that a 4 cylinder which is higher revving and generally higher RPM cruising seems to have been fine on a 20wt so far. This is good verifiable proof in once instance with an actual engine disassembled that ran a 20wt.
Last edited:
The higher the RPM the less MOFT is required. It's the low spinning engines that need more MOFT. Stevie, this is basic BITOG stuff.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
The higher the RPM the less MOFT is required. It's the low spinning engines that need more MOFT. Stevie, this is basic BITOG stuff.
Where did I quote MOFT? I was only talking about it being a 20wt.
The higher the RPM the less MOFT is required. It's the low spinning engines that need more MOFT. Stevie, this is basic BITOG stuff.
Where did I quote MOFT? I was only talking about it being a 20wt.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by KrisZ
The higher the RPM the less MOFT is required. It's the low spinning engines that need more MOFT. Stevie, this is basic BITOG stuff.
Where did I quote MOFT? I was only talking about it being a 20wt.
Youve made that implication many times in this thread, maybe without realizing it, you don't need to use the acronym "MOFT" to talk about it.
When asked about Toyota owners manual and a clause about using thicker oil for high speed driving or towing, you said that your Highlander revs really low at highway speeds, then you mentioned several times that 4 cylinder engines rev higher at highway speeds and are still fine or 20w oil.
This implies that low RPM is better suited for lower viscosity oils that higher RPM. This is not the case and that is why your owners manual mentions using heavier oil.
Of course a very high RPM cruising, like on Autobahn doing over 100mph, and wide throttle opening, heats up the oil a lot more, therefore it affects the MOFT to the point where the higher rotational speed cannot compansate for crankshaft wabble in the bearing, hence a higher viscosity lubricant is required.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
The higher the RPM the less MOFT is required. It's the low spinning engines that need more MOFT. Stevie, this is basic BITOG stuff.
Where did I quote MOFT? I was only talking about it being a 20wt.
Youve made that implication many times in this thread, maybe without realizing it, you don't need to use the acronym "MOFT" to talk about it.
When asked about Toyota owners manual and a clause about using thicker oil for high speed driving or towing, you said that your Highlander revs really low at highway speeds, then you mentioned several times that 4 cylinder engines rev higher at highway speeds and are still fine or 20w oil.
This implies that low RPM is better suited for lower viscosity oils that higher RPM. This is not the case and that is why your owners manual mentions using heavier oil.
Of course a very high RPM cruising, like on Autobahn doing over 100mph, and wide throttle opening, heats up the oil a lot more, therefore it affects the MOFT to the point where the higher rotational speed cannot compansate for crankshaft wabble in the bearing, hence a higher viscosity lubricant is required.
Last edited:
I've run it in many vehicles since 2004. My new Jeep specs 0W20 due to the auto start/stop.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by KrisZ
The higher the RPM the less MOFT is required. It's the low spinning engines that need more MOFT. Stevie, this is basic BITOG stuff.
Where did I quote MOFT? I was only talking about it being a 20wt.
Youve made that implication many times in this thread, maybe without realizing it, you don't need to use the acronym "MOFT" to talk about it.
When asked about Toyota owners manual and a clause about using thicker oil for high speed driving or towing, you said that your Highlander revs really low at highway speeds, then you mentioned several times that 4 cylinder engines rev higher at highway speeds and are still fine or 20w oil.
This implies that low RPM is better suited for lower viscosity oils that higher RPM. This is not the case and that is why your owners manual mentions using heavier oil.
Of course a very high RPM cruising, like on Autobahn doing over 100mph, and wide throttle opening, heats up the oil a lot more, therefore it affects the MOFT to the point where the higher rotational speed cannot compansate for crankshaft wabble in the bearing, hence a higher viscosity lubricant is required.
You took it at that. I was referring to heat generated by the friction.
Originally Posted by StevieC
Originally Posted by KrisZ
The higher the RPM the less MOFT is required. It's the low spinning engines that need more MOFT. Stevie, this is basic BITOG stuff.
Where did I quote MOFT? I was only talking about it being a 20wt.
Youve made that implication many times in this thread, maybe without realizing it, you don't need to use the acronym "MOFT" to talk about it.
When asked about Toyota owners manual and a clause about using thicker oil for high speed driving or towing, you said that your Highlander revs really low at highway speeds, then you mentioned several times that 4 cylinder engines rev higher at highway speeds and are still fine or 20w oil.
This implies that low RPM is better suited for lower viscosity oils that higher RPM. This is not the case and that is why your owners manual mentions using heavier oil.
Of course a very high RPM cruising, like on Autobahn doing over 100mph, and wide throttle opening, heats up the oil a lot more, therefore it affects the MOFT to the point where the higher rotational speed cannot compansate for crankshaft wabble in the bearing, hence a higher viscosity lubricant is required.
You took it at that. I was referring to heat generated by the friction.
Ok, fair enough, and how is oil temperature related to oil weight choice?
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by userfriendly
Mr SAE paper should be up soon. How many hours difference between say Minot, ND and Sydney, AU?
LOL, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I've learned the last few days that the SAE papers are useless as evidence, as they don't test every combination of oil and engine under every operating condition. As a result, the conclusions that they draw are no more sound than half baked made up theories stated emphatically and repeated.
Have also learned that facts scare people, while automotive fairy tales allay their fears, especially in light of their scientific equivalance (or superiority) to said SAE papers.
When news gets to the SAE, I would imagine that they too will see the light, disband, and there will be a book burning the likes of which hasn't been seen before...for largely the same reasons as most.
So having learned...I'm sticking to the Tarot and I-Ching for a while.
... funny stuff Shannow, and pretty much true based on this thread.
Originally Posted by userfriendly
Mr SAE paper should be up soon. How many hours difference between say Minot, ND and Sydney, AU?
LOL, thanks for the vote of confidence.
I've learned the last few days that the SAE papers are useless as evidence, as they don't test every combination of oil and engine under every operating condition. As a result, the conclusions that they draw are no more sound than half baked made up theories stated emphatically and repeated.
Have also learned that facts scare people, while automotive fairy tales allay their fears, especially in light of their scientific equivalance (or superiority) to said SAE papers.
When news gets to the SAE, I would imagine that they too will see the light, disband, and there will be a book burning the likes of which hasn't been seen before...for largely the same reasons as most.
So having learned...I'm sticking to the Tarot and I-Ching for a while.
- Status
Similar threads
